If we all did bad things and nothing happened to us as a result of doing these bad things, then what's the point?

There is no inherent value on human life if God does not exist. We are just wandering blobs of chemicals. Nothing wrong with destroying blobs of chemicals unless we have an inherent value on our lives given to us by God.

Just the other day an atheist on here said they killed a spider, which is also a blob of chemicals. It's OK to kill some blobs of chemicals but not other blobs of chemicals.

In an atheistic worldview, humans are no more important than cockroaches.

Just like everything else, Skeptic, you got it wrong. Go back and read my post. I took the spider outside. Only because she was poisonous. Kids and stuff, you know. I have spiders in my house right now that are free to do what they want. But they are unlikely to put me in the hospital.

Yea, like everyone else, I've killed spiders. But I didn't say that I did in my post yet you insist on distorting it. While that's real cute, it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

And by the way, everything you have ever eaten, except for the salt you put on it, was living at one time. Adding yet another layer of righteousness does your argument no good. And why is it that no matter how much we say we care about other humans, you insist that we can't because we don't think like you?

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

A lot of people on this forum certainly claim to know that God does not exist. I wonder how that is possible. Whenever I ask them how they know God is not real, it's nothing more than talking in circles.

They assume the universe doesn't need a Creator.

I was told by a friend of my parents that it was the cosmic consciousness of Krishna which created the universe.

I am not sure why you would think it was Yahweh. His description of creation is all wrong.

Many atheists in this forum tend to place a value on human life - at least the lives of "innocent" Canaanite children.

It's funny how you never see them complain when an 85 year odl woman dies peacefully in her bed. But, when someone dies young, they start throwing fits.

God allows each and every person to die. There was no rule where God said that we must live to age 85.

In one situation, God is evil for allowing them to die, but in another situation he's not evil even though the end result is still death.

I would like to ask the atheists, is God evil for allowing every single person to die?

They say He is evil because He kills people or has His followers kill people, or because He doesn't prevent some people from killing other people. They especially get mad about Israelites killing Canaanites. I think it might be because Canaanites worshiped false gods, and behind every false idol is a demon, and some of these people appear to be influenced by demons, so maybe they are influenced by the demons that the Canaanites worshiped.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

H2O can be water, ice, and steam. Think of the 3 persons of God like that. It's certainly not irrational that water, ice and steam all exist in different states.

No, I think I'll stick with the "pantheon of gods" concept a while longer. It makes a bit more sense, especially when dealing with a god dying and coming back to life. If you have three separate gods and one dies, the other two could work their divine magic and bring him back; otherwise, if the other two aspects of the same being did the work, he was only one-third dead and there was no real sacrifice.

I would like to ask the atheists, is God evil for allowing every single person to die?

Nope. His nonexistence sort of lets him off the hook.

Our complaint about life, and one of the things we would like to fix, is premature death. If it can be avoided, we think that is a good thing. It adds to the quality of life and stuff, something that I know you don't care about, but some of us do.

Of course, from your POV, and gzusfreke's, everyone is guilt, whether they be Canaanite or christian children or anything else. Some are a bit more guilty, so I assume they were slaughtered or something, but hey, kids will be kids, you know.

You guys can run around feeling as permanently guilty as you want. I prefer to wait until I've done something wrong. I, for one, appreciate a break every now and then.

And, by the way, if the Canaanite kids were guilty of something horrid, I'm far more guilty. You need my address? I assume you can get a gun. I hope you wouldn't want to fail to do your duty to your god out of, you know, some concern that you might get arrested or something. Of what importance would that be when compared to fulfilling the work of your lord?

If we all did bad things and nothing happened to us as a result of doing these bad things, then what's the point?

There is no inherent value on human life if God does not exist. We are just wandering blobs of chemicals. Nothing wrong with destroying blobs of chemicals unless we have an inherent value on our lives given to us by God.

Just the other day an atheist on here said they killed a spider, which is also a blob of chemicals. It's OK to kill some blobs of chemicals but not other blobs of chemicals.

In an atheistic worldview, humans are no more important than cockroaches.

Just like everything else, Skeptic, you got it wrong. Go back and read my post. I took the spider outside. Only because she was poisonous. Kids and stuff, you know. I have spiders in my house right now that are free to do what they want. But they are unlikely to put me in the hospital.

Yea, like everyone else, I've killed spiders. But I didn't say that I did in my post yet you insist on distorting it. While that's real cute, it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

And by the way, everything you have ever eaten, except for the salt you put on it, was living at one time. Adding yet another layer of righteousness does your argument no good. And why is it that no matter how much we say we care about other humans, you insist that we can't because we don't think like you?

You can care about humans, but you would be borrowing from the Christian worldview that humans have inherent value and worth.

My apologies about the spider, but you did admit you have killed spiders before. Have you killed a human before? I would think the answer is no. So this means you at least think it's OK to kill a spider but not a human. Any particular reason?

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

H2O can be water, ice, and steam. Think of the 3 persons of God like that. It's certainly not irrational that water, ice and steam all exist in different states.

No, I think I'll stick with the "pantheon of gods" concept a while longer. It makes a bit more sense, especially when dealing with a god dying and coming back to life. If you have three separate gods and one dies, the other two could work their divine magic and bring him back; otherwise, if the other two aspects of the same being did the work, he was only one-third dead and there was no real sacrifice.

How about a different concept? A concept of only one God, but one of the manifestions or persons that this God exists in (because this one God can exists as three persons simultaneously yet still be one God) takes to Himself a second nature - that of a human being, and it is the second nature that dies - because being God, the god-nature cannot die. And it is the work of all three persons of this one God that raises the human nature's body back to everlasting life.

There was a real sacrifice, because it was the self-sacrifice if a real human life. This nature and life was joined to the nature and life of God, so though God did not die on the cross, God experienced the death that His human nature suffered.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Skeptic, many a culture cared about other humans, even when christianity wasn't involved. Or should I say especially when christianity wasn't involved.

I am a member of an evolved species, which apparently values itself over other species. Both in times of need and in times of minor inconvenience. My reason for not killing people is not religious in any sense. I can't be. I'm not religious. And if I were, I'd be guilty of something all the time anyway, so I might be more inclined to kill just because I was already in trouble.

You don't have an argument here. You're just waving your hands around and pretending your Spiderman. It ain't working.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

How about a different concept? A concept of only one God, but one of the manifestions or persons that this God exists in (because this one God can exists as three persons simultaneously yet still be one God) takes to Himself a second nature - that of a human being, and it is the second nature that dies... {snip} There was a real sacrifice, because it was the self-sacrifice if a real human life. This nature and life was joined to the nature and life of God, so though God did not die on the cross, God experienced the death that His human nature suffered.

That's a slightly more tenable concept, although I don't know if a god could accurately experience a human death as a human.

One of My favourite interpretations of the crucifixion story, by the way, comes from one of Kurt Vonnegut's books, Slaughterhouse Five. It's a story within a story, an excerpt from a novel written by one of Vonnegut's characters:

Quote

It was The Gospel from Outer Space, by Kilgore Trout. It was about a visitor from outer space, shaped very much like a Tralfamadorian, by the way. The visitor from outer space made a serious study of Christianity, to learn, if he could, why Christians found it so easy to be cruel. He concluded that at least part of the trouble was slipshod storytelling in the New Testament. He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low.But the Gospels actually taught this:

Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected. So it goes.

The flaw in the Christ stories, said the visitor from outer space, was that Christ, who didn't look like much, was actually the Son of the Most Powerful Being of the Universe. Readers understood that, so, when they came to the crucifixion, they naturally thought, and Rosewater read out loud again:

Oh, boy -- they sure picked the wrong guy to lynch that time!

And then that thought had a brother: "There are right people to lynch." Who? People not well connected. So it goes.The visitor from outer space made a gift to Earth of a new Gospel. In it, Jesus really was a nobody, and a pain in the neck to a lot of people with better connections than he had. He still got to say all the lovely and puzzling things he said in the other Gospels.

So the people amused themselves one day by nailing him to a cross and planting the cross in the ground. There couldn't possibly be any repercussions, the lynchers thought. The reader would have to think that, too, since the new Gospel hammered home again and again what a nobody Jesus was. And then, just before the nobody died, the heavens opened up, and there was thunder and lightning. The voice of God came crashing down. He told the people that he was adopting the bum as his son, giving him the full powers and privileges of The Son of the Creator of the Universe throughout all eternity. God said this: From this moment on, He will punish horribly anybody who torments a bum who has no connections!

Who made the Krishna consciousness? That is the issue, or so I thought.

No, the issue is why Yahweh does not understand how the universe is put together.

Ok, how is the universe put together and how do you know that Yahweh does not understand it?

This looks wrong to me. Maybe you think it is right?

I've never seen that in any of the various Bibles (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB, NEV, NLT, Amplified, etc,.), Bible encyclopedias, Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries, or any other Christian theology books, so it doesn't mean anything to me. What does it mean to you? Or what are you trying to make it mean?

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Who made the Krishna consciousness? That is the issue, or so I thought.

No, the issue is why Yahweh does not understand how the universe is put together.

Ok, how is the universe put together and how do you know that Yahweh does not understand it?

This looks wrong to me. Maybe you think it is right?

I've never seen that in any of the various Bibles (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB, NEV, NLT, Amplified, etc,.), Bible encyclopedias, Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries, or any other Christian theology books, so it doesn't mean anything to me. What does it mean to you? Or what are you trying to make it mean?

Never? I have to question your honesty, but I will give you the opportunity to find an alternative picture of the biblical universe.

How about a different concept? A concept of only one God, but one of the manifestions or persons that this God exists in (because this one God can exists as three persons simultaneously yet still be one God) takes to Himself a second nature - that of a human being, and it is the second nature that dies... {snip} There was a real sacrifice, because it was the self-sacrifice if a real human life. This nature and life was joined to the nature and life of God, so though God did not die on the cross, God experienced the death that His human nature suffered.

That's a slightly more tenable concept, although I don't know if a god could accurately experience a human death as a human.

It is a paradox that the Immortal could take on mortality and taste or experience death. Even more interesting is that it was the death of the human nature of the Christ that Christianity claims defeated Death.

Quote

One of My favourite interpretations of the crucifixion story, by the way, comes from one of Kurt Vonnegut's books, Slaughterhouse Five. It's a story within a story, an excerpt from a novel written by one of Vonnegut's characters:

Quote

It was The Gospel from Outer Space, by Kilgore Trout. It was about a visitor from outer space, shaped very much like a Tralfamadorian, by the way. The visitor from outer space made a serious study of Christianity, to learn, if he could, why Christians found it so easy to be cruel. He concluded that at least part of the trouble was slipshod storytelling in the New Testament. He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low.But the Gospels actually taught this:

Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected. So it goes.

The flaw in the Christ stories, said the visitor from outer space, was that Christ, who didn't look like much, was actually the Son of the Most Powerful Being of the Universe. Readers understood that, so, when they came to the crucifixion, they naturally thought, and Rosewater read out loud again:

Oh, boy -- they sure picked the wrong guy to lynch that time!

And then that thought had a brother: "There are right people to lynch." Who? People not well connected. So it goes.The visitor from outer space made a gift to Earth of a new Gospel. In it, Jesus really was a nobody, and a pain in the neck to a lot of people with better connections than he had. He still got to say all the lovely and puzzling things he said in the other Gospels.

So the people amused themselves one day by nailing him to a cross and planting the cross in the ground. There couldn't possibly be any repercussions, the lynchers thought. The reader would have to think that, too, since the new Gospel hammered home again and again what a nobody Jesus was. And then, just before the nobody died, the heavens opened up, and there was thunder and lightning. The voice of God came crashing down. He told the people that he was adopting the bum as his son, giving him the full powers and privileges of The Son of the Creator of the Universe throughout all eternity. God said this: From this moment on, He will punish horribly anybody who torments a bum who has no connections!

I remember reading this back in the late 70's. This is a sad interpretation though since it misses the whole point of the crucifixion.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin